https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7010

In re Estate of NK (Deceased) (Succession Cause E2190 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 7010 (KLR) (Family) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7010 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause E2190 of 2021 HK Chemitei, J May 21, 2026 IN THE MATTER THE ESTATE OF NK (DECEASED) Between EMN Objector and KN 1st Administrator AMK 2nd Administrator MNK 3rd Administrator NNK 4th Administrator and KGN 1st Objector KKN 2nd Objector Ruling 1.This ruling relates to the applications dated 11th November and 24th November, 2025. 2.The application dated 25th February, 2025 filed by the Applicant, EMN; seeks for orders that:1.Spent.2.Pending the hearing and determination of this Summons inter-parties, the administration of this Estate be stayed.3.The grant of letters of administration to MNK, KNK, AMK and NNK made on the 27th day of October 2025, be revoked and/or or annulled.4.The said MNK, KNK, AMK and NNK be ordered to render by filing before this Honourable Court an accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full and accurate account of all dealings therewith up to the date of the order for revocation of the grant of letters of administration dated 27th October 2025.5.The Applicant’s Objection and Cross-application for a Grant both dated 18 February 2022 be set down for hearing on its merits.6.In the interest of justice, this Honourable Court be pleased to make such additional orders and give such further directions as it shall deem fit.7.The costs of this application be provided for. 3.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavits sworn by EMN and Wanjiku Gichachi Mohamed on 11th November, 2025 and supplementary affidavit sworn by EMN on 24th April, 2026. 4.The Objector/Applicant, EMN, deposes that she is the deceased’s widow and had together with her sons, KGN and KKN, filed objections to the making of a grant in respect of the deceased’s estate. She states that she also filed an answer to the petition and a cross-petition for grant of letters of administration intestate dated 18th February, 2022, none of which have ever been withdrawn. 5.She avers that as the widow of the deceased, she ranks in priority under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act in applying for a grant of representation. She further explains that the objections and cross-petition were admitted by the Court through a ruling delivered on 28th June, 2024 after extension of time was granted. 6.She further states that the matter had been fixed for mention on 27th October, 2025 before Justice Chemitei for directions regarding the hearing of the pending objections. However, on that date, the Court proceeded to issue a grant of letters of administration to KNK, AMK, MNK and NNK without considering the objections and cross-petition already on record. She contends that the grant was issued contrary to Rules 17 (11) and 17 (14) of the Probate and Administration Rules, which prohibit issuance of a grant where there exists an effective objection that has not been withdrawn. 7.She explains that neither she nor her advocates attended Court because they were misled by the cause list, which indicated that proceedings would commence at 9.00 a.m., whereas the matter was dealt with earlier at 8.30 a.m. 8.She further avers that the Administrators and their advocates were fully aware of the objections, cross-petition and answer to petition because they had been served and had responded to them, yet failed to disclose those pending proceedings to the Court. 9.According to the Applicant, the grant was therefore obtained through concealment of material facts. She also challenges the validity of the petition on grounds that it was undated and unsigned by one of the proposed Administrators, MNK. 10.The Applicant additionally alleges that some of the Administrators had already begun collecting rental income from several estate properties prior to issuance of the grant. She lists various properties situated in Kilimani, Dagoretti, Kabuku Limuru, Juja and Kilifi, comprising apartments, rental units, shops, hotels, restaurants and commercial facilities. 11.She therefore seeks orders compelling the Administrators to render a full inventory of the estate assets and liabilities together with an account of all dealings undertaken from the date of the deceased’s death. She maintains that unless the impugned grant is revoked and the administration of the estate stayed, she and her children will continue suffering prejudice as they have been excluded from management of the estate. 12.The annexures attached to the affidavit include the ruling delivered on 28th June, 2024, the Applicant’s cross-petition, objections to the making of the grant, objections filed by her sons and the cause list for 27th October, 2025. The annexed ruling confirms that the Court had indeed granted leave for the objections to be deemed properly filed and directed that the objections be heard on merit. The annexed pleadings further show that the Applicant claims to be the lawful widow of the deceased and contends that the petitioners excluded her and her children from the succession proceedings despite her statutory priority under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. 13.In her supplementary affidavit, EMN reiterates that she is the lawful widow of the deceased, NK, and states that the replying affidavits by MNK and AMK raise malicious and collateral attacks on her identity, marriage and the status of her children in an attempt to divert attention from what she describes as the unlawful issuance of the grant on 27th October, 2025 in breach of Rules 17 (11) and 17 (14) of the Probate and Administration Rules. 14.She explains that after her civil marriage to the deceased, she legally adopted the surname N and was issued with a national identity card in the name EMN on 22nd November, 2019. She points out that even the Administrators themselves referred to her by those names in their own petition for grant filed in October 2021 and therefore cannot now dispute her identity or competence to swear affidavits using that name. She annexes a copy of her identity card in support of this assertion. She strongly denies allegations that her marriage certificate is forged. She relies on correspondence from the Registrar of Marriages and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations confirming that she and the deceased complied with all statutory procedures under the Marriage Act. 15.According to the annexed letter dated 3rd March, 2022 from the Registrar of Marriages, the couple issued a 21-day statutory notice on 11th August, 2016, obtained the requisite clearance certificate on 6th September 2016 and subsequently solemnized the marriage through Full Gospel Church Kilifi, which filed the marriage returns with the Registrar on 30th September, 2016. 16.She argues that these official records conclusively establish the validity of the marriage and cannot be displaced by bare allegations of forgery unsupported by expert or forensic evidence. She further contends that the Administrators are effectively seeking to disinherit her by attempting to invalidate a duly registered marriage after the death of the deceased. She maintains that a marriage lawfully contracted and registered under the Marriage Act cannot be nullified posthumously merely to advance the interests of the deceased’s biological children. 17.She reiterates that widows enjoy statutory protection and priority in administration under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act. She further states that questions regarding the authenticity of documents, her marital status and whether KGN and KKN qualify as dependants, adopted children or stepchildren of the deceased are substantive evidentiary issues that should only be determined during the hearing of the objections, answer to petition and cross-petition already on record. 18.She argues that those issues cannot properly be resolved through affidavit evidence in an interlocutory application without oral testimony and cross-examination. She avers that she is ready to produce evidence at the substantive hearing, including photographs of dowry negotiations, witness testimony and the marriage certificate itself, to prove her status as widow of the deceased. 19.She also rejects allegations of intermeddling with the estate. She instead accuses the Administrators of having actively intermeddled with the estate since the deceased’s death by collecting rental income from numerous properties in Kilimani, Dagoretti Corner, Kabuku Limuru, Juja and Kilifi without rendering any account to the Court. She characterizes the accusations levelled against her as hypocritical and intended to obscure the real issue before the Court, namely whether the grant issued on 27th October, 2025 was lawfully obtained. 20.E further asserts that the deceased had accepted and maintained KGN and KKN as his own children. She states that they bore his surname, were raised and educated by him and that one of them was being maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death. 21.On advice of counsel, she states that Section 3 (2) of the Law of Succession Act recognises as children those whom a deceased person had expressly accepted as his own or assumed permanent responsibility for. She therefore contends that the issue of dependency and acceptance should be determined during the substantive hearing of the objections. She reiterates that she ranks in priority for appointment as administrator by virtue of being the lawful widow of the deceased. 22.However, she states that in the interests of justice and expediency, she remains willing to serve jointly with one or more of the deceased’s biological children as co-Administrators of the estate. She nevertheless insists that the Court should not sanction the continued exclusion of the widow through what she terms an illegally obtained grant. 23.E further argues that the Administrators have fundamentally misconstrued Rules 17 (11) and 17 (14) of the Probate and Administration Rules by treating them as mere internal administrative guidelines. She maintains that the rules form part of the substantive statutory framework governing succession proceedings and are binding upon the Court process. 24.According to her, because there existed pending objections, an answer to petition and a cross-petition which had neither been withdrawn nor determined at the time the grant was issued on 27th October, 2025, the proceedings leading to the issuance of the grant were fundamentally defective and the grant remains liable to revocation under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 25.She therefore urges the Court to stay administration of the estate pending hearing of the summons for revocation so as to prevent further prejudice and dissipation of estate assets. She finally prays that the grant issued on 27th October, 2025 be revoked and that the pending objection proceedings be heard and determined on their merits after all parties are afforded an opportunity to present evidence. 26.Wanjiku Gichachi Mohamed, the Objector/Applicant’s advocate, reiterates that EMN and her sons, KGN and KKN, had previously filed objections dated 18th February, 2022 and 18th May, 2022 respectively, which were later admitted by the Court through a ruling delivered on 28th June, 2024. 27.Counsel further states that contemporaneously with the objections, the Applicant filed an answer to petition and a cross-petition for grant of letters of administration intestate, all dated 18th February, 2022. Counsel explains that the matter came up on 27th October, 2025 for directions regarding the pending objections, but the Applicant logged into the virtual Court session at 9.00 a.m. only to discover that the Court had already commenced proceedings at 8.30 a.m. It is deposed that the cause list indicated proceedings would begin at 9.00 a.m., thereby creating the impression that the Court would follow the usual commencement time observed by most Courts. 28.Consequently, neither the Applicant nor her advocates attended when the grant was issued. The deponent further avers that Rules 17 (11) and 17 (14) of the Probate and Administration Rules expressly prohibit the issuance of a grant where a valid objection remains pending and has not been withdrawn. It is asserted that despite the existence of pending objections, an answer to petition and a cross-petition, the Court proceeded to issue a grant of letters of administration intestate. 29.Counsel maintains that the Administrators and their advocates had knowledge of the pending proceedings because they had been duly served and had responded to them, but nevertheless failed to disclose these material facts to the Court, thereby obtaining the grant through concealment of material information. 30.She further contends that the appointment of Administrators during what was scheduled as a mention for directions amounted to a substantive order which ought not to have been made in the circumstances. Counsel therefore urges the Court, in the interests of justice and pursuant to Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, to revoke or annul the impugned grant and to stay the administration of the estate pending determination of the dispute. The annexures attached to the affidavit comprise copies of the objections filed by the Applicant and her sons, the ruling delivered on 28th June, 2024, the answer to petition, the cross-petition for grant, and related Court receipts and pleadings. 31.The annexed pleadings consistently challenge the validity of the petition on grounds that one of the petitioners failed to sign it, that the supporting affidavit did not comply with statutory requirements and that the widow and stepchildren of the deceased had been excluded from the succession proceedings despite their alleged entitlement and dependency. The annexed ruling also confirms that the Court had earlier deemed the objections properly filed and directed that they be heard on merit. 32.The application is opposed vide replying affidavits sworn by NNK, MNK, AMK on 15th December, 2025, 18th March, 2026 and 30th March, 2026; and notice of preliminary objection by KN dated 30th March, 2026. 33.NNK avers inter alia that she is the 4th administrator and the deceased’s daughter. She states that the summons is devoid of merit and does not satisfy the legal threshold required for revocation of the grant issued to the Administrators on 27th October, 2025. She outlines the legal grounds upon which a grant may be revoked under succession law, namely where the proceedings were defective in substance, where the grant was obtained fraudulently through false statements or concealment of material facts, where the grant was based on untrue allegations of essential facts, where the Administrators have failed to diligently administer the estate or where the grant has become useless and inoperative. 34.She maintains that none of these grounds have been established by the Objector. She denies the allegation that the Administrators concealed the existence of objections filed in the matter. She avers that the matter was mentioned on 27th October, 2025 at 8.30 a.m. as indicated in the official Court cause list and that all litigants had notice of the Court’s timings. She annexes the relevant cause list to demonstrate that the Court session indeed commenced at 8.30 a.m. 35.Contrary to the bjector’s assertions, she states that all Administrators and even the proposed interested party were represented in Court when the matter was called out, save for the Objector who failed to attend. She further states that the Administrators informed the Court about the pending objections and also highlighted the practical challenges affecting the estate since the deceased’s death in 2021. These included the absence of any appointed administrator for several years, disappearance of the Court file on multiple occasions causing delays, risk of loss of rental income from estate properties and continued wastage and deterioration of estate assets in the absence of formal administration. 36.She therefore contends that the Court properly exercised its discretion in appointing Administrators so as to preserve the estate and prevent further loss. N further avers that revocation of the grant would prejudice the estate because there would be no lawful Administrators in place, thereby exposing the estate assets to further wastage. She emphasizes that the Administrators are not legally permitted to distribute estate property before confirmation of grant and therefore the Objector will suffer no prejudice if the grant remains in force. 37.She also points out that the Objector has not proposed any alternative Administrators to manage the estate in the event the grant is revoked. She concludes by stating that the Court’s discretion to revoke a grant must be exercised judiciously and only upon sound legal grounds. She urges the Court to consider the interests of all beneficiaries and to uphold the grant while directing that the objections on record be heard together with the summons for confirmation of grant. 38.She therefore prays that the summons for revocation be dismissed with costs. The annexures attached to the affidavit include copies of the official Court cause list relied upon by the Objector. The cause list indicates that matters before Justice H.K. Chemitei on 27th October, 2025 commenced at 8.30 a.m., thereby supporting the Administrators’ assertion that the Court’s sitting time had been properly indicated. 39.MNK avers inter alia that he is the 3rd Administrator and the deceased’s son. He contends that the application is legally untenable, fatally defective and based on material falsehoods and therefore ought to be dismissed with costs. He states that the affidavit sworn by EMN contains deliberate misrepresentations and procedural defects, including being improperly commissioned and relying on affidavits sworn by another person. 40.He disputes the claim that KGM and KKN are children of the deceased. He avers that the two are biological children of DMG and that they merely changed their names by deed poll to adopt the surname N” in order to mislead the Court. He annexes copies of their identity cards, pleadings and judgments from Tononoka Children’s Case No. 461 of 2014, where E allegedly acknowledged DMG as their father. 41.He further argues that the two individuals were adults at the time of the deceased’s death and had never been legally adopted by the deceased, nor shown to have been maintained by him. He also challenges the validity of the marriage between the Objector and the deceased. He describes the marriage certificate dated 29th September, 2016 as questionable, asserting that the Registrar of Marriages could not authenticate it. He points to visible alterations and cancellations appearing on the certificate and argues that the deceased was falsely described as single, despite being married to his late wife IWK at the material time. 42.He further maintains that E herself could not validly contract the alleged marriage because she had previously been married to DMG and no evidence of dissolution of that marriage had been produced. 43.He further accuses the Objector of engaging in deceptive conduct regarding the estate. He states that she attempted to access the deceased’s bank accounts and obtained an ex parte limited grant in Malindi Succession Cause No. 79 of 2021 using a different death certificate from the one relied upon in the present proceedings. He alleges that she fraudulently transferred motor vehicle registration number KCE XXXE into her name while aware that a grant of representation had already been issued in the estate. He annexes NTSA transfer records and states that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations has commenced inquiries into possible intermeddling contrary to Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. 44.M further argues that the summons for revocation does not satisfy the statutory grounds under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. He maintains that the grant issued on 27th October, 2025 was lawfully obtained and that the Objector had no superior right to administration of the estate. He contends that the pending objections on the Court record did not prevent the Deputy Registrar from issuing the grant because objections do not automatically suspend the process of administration. 45.He also denies that the Administrators are unable to distribute the estate pending confirmation of grant, arguing that the Objector has not demonstrated any prejudice warranting reversal of the Court’s earlier decision. According to the deponent, the grant serves the interests of all beneficiaries and should remain in force while the objection proceedings are heard and determined on merit. He urges the Court to hear both the objection proceedings and the summons for confirmation together so that all parties can ventilate their positions comprehensively. 46.The annexures attached to the affidavit include copies of identity cards, children’s Court pleadings and judgments, the impugned marriage certificate, supporting affidavits relating to the marriage ceremony, pleadings and rulings from the Malindi succession proceedings, death certificates, NTSA motor vehicle ownership and transfer records and correspondence from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations concerning investigations into alleged intermeddling with the estate. The documents are relied upon to support the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, unlawful transfer of assets and lack of legal dependency or spousal status on the part of the Objector and her sons. 47.AMK avers inter alia that the application is incompetent, misconceived and unsupported by the provisions of Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. According to her, the Objector has failed to establish any lawful basis for revocation of the grant issued to the Administrators of the estate. The deponent denies that the Objector was ever married to the deceased, NK. She contends that the alleged marriage certificate dated 29th September, 2016 is fraudulent and that the purported ceremony at Full Gospel Churches of Kenya, Kilifi, never took place. She relies on an affidavit sworn by Kamunyu Kahenya, who was allegedly listed as a witness to the marriage, denying attendance or participation in any such ceremony. 48.She further states that the deceased was lawfully married to IWK until her death in 2014, thereby negating the Objector’s claim of spousal status. She also disputes the Objector’s claim that KG and KK are children of the deceased. She asserts that the two are biological children of DMG, as evidenced by proceedings and judgments in Tononoka Children’s Case No. 461 of 2014. 49.According to her, those proceedings established that EMM was married to DMG and that the children were born from that union. She further avers that the children were never legally adopted by the deceased and therefore cannot qualify as beneficiaries or dependants of the estate. The affidavit further states that both K and K merely changed their names by deed poll and adopted the surname N in order to create the false impression that they were children of the deceased. She annexes copies of their national identity cards and contends that this amounted to deliberate misrepresentation intended to mislead the Court. 50.She maintains that the Objector has failed to prove dependency as required under Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act and therefore neither she nor the two children have any lawful entitlement to inherit from the estate. She further accuses the Objector of intermeddling with the estate by transferring motor vehicle registration number KCE XXXE into her own name. She states that the transfer was carried out before any lawful grant had been issued and that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations commenced investigations into the alleged unlawful transfer and intermeddling with the estate property. She annexes copies of police reports, OB extracts, DCI correspondence and proceedings from the Malindi succession matter to support these allegations. 51.The annexures attached to the affidavit include copies of the disputed marriage certificate showing alleged alterations, proceedings and judgment from Tononoka Children’s Case No. 461 of 2014, identity cards of K and K, OB extracts, police reports, DCI correspondence regarding investigations into intermeddling and documents relating to the Malindi succession proceedings. These documents are relied upon to demonstrate alleged fraud, lack of dependency, absence of a valid marriage and unlawful dealings with estate assets by the Objector. 52.KN’s is premised on provisions of the Penal Code, the Marriage Act, and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. He seeks to have the Objectors’ applications struck out on grounds that the Objectors allegedly lack locus standi in the succession proceedings. He contends that the names used by the Objectors in the succession proceedings do not officially exist in government records. He alleges that the three Objectors deceptively adopted the surname N in order to falsely create the impression of a close relationship with the deceased and thereby mislead the Court. 53.According to the Applicant, the Objectors are strangers to the estate and their objections are therefore defective and ought to be struck out in entirety. The preliminary objection further states that official identification documents and records do not show the surname N in relation to the Objectors and that there is no Gazette Notice evidencing any lawful change of names. The Applicant maintains that K and K are biological children of DMG, as allegedly confirmed in Tononoka Children’s Case No. 461 of 201 and therefore cannot lawfully claim to be stepsons or dependants of the deceased. He also asserts that the two still reside with DMG in Mikindani, Mombasa. 54.The Applicant additionally argues that the 1st Objector, EMM, was married to DMG and there is no evidence that the marriage was ever dissolved. He therefore contends that she could not legally remarry the deceased without first obtaining a decree of divorce. He further alleges that the marriage certificate relied upon by the Objector is a forgery containing manual alterations and corrections and that there is no official record of the certificate in government registries. He also states that alleged witnesses to the marriage ceremony have previously disowned the document through affidavits filed in Court. 55.The preliminary objection also accuses the 1st Objector of intermeddling with the estate. He alleges that she unlawfully transferred motor vehicle registration number KCE XXXE from the deceased’s name into her own and is under investigation by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. 56.He further claims that she attempted to fraudulently withdraw Kshs. 10 million from the deceased’s bank accounts through a limited grant allegedly obtained using forged consents from the Administrators, but that the Malindi Magistrate’s Court rejected the application. The Applicant further alleges that after the deceased’s death, the 1st Objector improperly installed herself as next of kin at Mater Hospital without the knowledge of the deceased’s immediate family, resulting in the issuance of a different death certificate which she allegedly used in subsequent proceedings. 57.He describes the 1st Objector as a habitual intermeddler and contends that she has filed multiple suits in various Courts, including matters before the Thika Environment and Land Court and Chief Magistrate’s Court, in which she allegedly falsely claims to be the deceased’s widow. According to the Applicant, these proceedings form part of a broader conspiracy to defraud the estate and its beneficiaries. 58.He concludes by asserting that all the matters raised in the preliminary objection have previously been brought before the Court through earlier applications filed by the Administrators or their advocates, and that the Objectors have never adequately responded to the allegations raised concerning their legal standing and alleged fraudulent conduct. He therefore urges the Court to strike out all objections and applications filed by the Objectors for want of locus standi and abuse of the Court process. 59.The application dated 24th November, 2025 filed by the Applicants, KNK, MNK, AMK and NNK; seeks for a Special Limited Grant of letters of administration of the estate of the above-named NK who died domiciled in Kenya on 9th December, 2020 limited for the purpose of: accessing the deceased's Bank Account No. 1060XXX held at Equity Bank, Kilifi Town Branch, with a view of withdrawing the sum of Kenya Shillings Seven Million, Seven Hundred Thousand Only (KES.7,700,000/-) and transferring the same to the joint account Number 10061XXX (KES) held at NCBA Bank Kenya PLC, NCBA Centre, Upper Hill Branch by the Administrators, for the purpose of settling urgent and pressing debts and liabilities of the estate including outstanding salaries for estate workers, legal fees, maintenance of the estate’s companies, repairs and maintenance of the estate’s properties, and general maintenance of the beneficiaries; and authorizing the Administrators to convert the deceased's Bank Account No. 1060XXX at Equity Bank, Kilifi Town Branch, into a fixed deposit account to enable the balance in the account to earn interest pending the completion of full administration and distribution of the estate. 60.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by KN on 24th November, 2025. He avers inter alia that he is one of the duly appointed Administrators of the estate of the late NK, together with MNK, AMK and NNK, following the issuance of a grant of letters of administration intestate on 27th October, 2025. 61.He avers that the deceased died on 9th December, 2020 at Mater Hospital, Nairobi and that the estate faces urgent and pressing liabilities which require immediate settlement. According to him, the Administrators sought a special limited grant because the normal process of confirmation of grant would not be concluded in sufficient time to address the pressing financial obligations facing the estate. 62.He explains that the estate holds funds in Equity Bank Account No. 1060XXX at Kilifi Town Branch and seeks authority to withdraw Kshs.7,700,000/= and transfer the same to a joint NCBA Bank account operated by the Administrators. The funds are intended to settle urgent liabilities including salaries for estate workers, legal fees, administration expenses, company secretarial costs and repairs and maintenance of estate properties. 63.He further seeks authority for the balance remaining in the Equity Bank account to be converted into a fixed deposit account so as to generate interest pending completion of administration and distribution of the estate. 64.The affidavit contains a detailed inventory of the estate’s alleged urgent liabilities amounting to Kshs. 7,700,000/=. These include six months’ salary arrears for estate workers estimated at Kshs. 2,100,000/=, company secretarial fees of Kshs. 800,000/=, legal fees amounting to Kshs. 1,500,000/=, administration fees of Kshs.1,200,000/=, discharge and regularization expenses of Kshs.500,000/= and repairs and maintenance costs estimated at Kshs.1,600,000/=. 65.He asserts that failure to address these obligations immediately would result in deterioration and loss of value of the estate assets, ultimately prejudicing the beneficiaries. 66.The deponent further avers that the Administrators do not intend to distribute the estate under the special limited grant, but only seek authority to preserve and manage the estate assets pending confirmation of grant. He states that all interest earned from the fixed deposit account would accrue for the benefit of the estate and beneficiaries and that the application has been made in good faith and in the best interests of the estate. 67.The annexures attached to the affidavit include an authority signed by the co-Administrators authorizing KNK to swear the affidavit on their behalf, a copy of the deceased’s death certificate and a copy of the grant of letters of administration issued on 27th October, 2025. The annexures also include documents purporting to support the alleged liabilities of the estate, including handwritten salary schedules for workers and maintenance expenses relating to pool attendants, security personnel and other employees. 68.Further annexures comprise official searches and correspondence relating to estate companies and properties. These include a certificate of official search showing property LR No. 2/XXX registered in the name of Ngufami Investments Limited and encumbered by a mortgage in favour of Diamond Trust Bank. There are also letters from Paul Musungu & Company Advocates relating to company secretarial services for Ngufami Investments Limited, Ngufami Investments (2008) Limited and Ngure Shelters Management Limited. 69.The letters outline costs associated with updating annual returns, beneficial ownership information, directorship changes, transfer of shares and corporate restructuring, with estimated fees running into hundreds of thousands of shillings. The affidavit further annexes fee notes from Patricia Njirwa Advocate concerning discharge of charges over several properties secured to Diamond Trust Bank, with total legal fees and disbursements amounting to approximately Kshs.107,500/=. Additional interim fee notes from Kariuki & Company Advocates seek Kshs.232,000/= for preparation of the petition for special limited grant and Kshs.580,000/= for registration of a trust for the benefit of WN. 70.The application is opposed vide replying affidavits sworn by EMN and NNK on 11th March, 2026 and 12th March, 2026. 71.EMN avers inter alia that the petition seeks authority to access the deceased’s Equity Bank account at Kilifi Town Branch, withdraw Kshs. 7,700,000/= to settle alleged liabilities, and place the remaining balance in a fixed deposit account. She argues that the application is improper because the substantive grant issued on 27th October, 2025 is already the subject of a pending summons for revocation or annulment dated 11th November, 2025, which challenges the validity of the grant on grounds of procedural defects, fraud and concealment of material facts. 72.She further contends that the Administrators have been unlawfully intermeddling with the estate by collecting rent from the deceased’s properties since his death without rendering any accounts, contrary to Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. According to the deponent, the rental income collected from numerous estate properties ought to have been sufficient to meet any legitimate estate liabilities, thereby rendering the request for withdrawal of Kshs. 7,700,000/= unnecessary and premature. 73.She also maintains that as the surviving widow, she enjoys priority under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act and that the grant was issued without her consent, renunciation or citation. She reiterates that the grant issued on 27th October, 2025 was irregularly obtained despite pending objections, an answer to petition and a cross-petition for grant that had neither been withdrawn nor heard. She argues that this violated Rules 17 (11) and 17 (14) of the Probate and Administration Rules. 74.She also alleges that the petition for grant was defective because one of the Administrators, MNK, neither signed nor dated the petition, rendering it invalid. She further avers that no additional grants should issue pending determination of the summons for revocation because doing so would legitimize an already contested process. 75.She asserts that limited grants under Section 54 of the Law of Succession Act are intended only for exceptional situations aimed at preserving the estate and should not issue where the validity of the substantive grant itself remains disputed. The affidavit sets out an extensive list of estate properties allegedly generating substantial rental income, including apartments in Kilimani and Dagoretti, rental houses and shops in Limuru and Juja and hospitality facilities in Kilifi comprising apartments, a gym, swimming pool, bar, restaurant, boutique, salon, conference hall and event grounds. The Objector estimates that the Administrators have collected in excess of Kshs. 72 million in rent over five years without authority or accountability. She relies on a valuation report by Crystal Valuers Ltd dated 22nd June, 2010 to demonstrate that the properties were already generating significant rental income as early as 2010. 76.The annexed valuation report provides detailed descriptions of several properties, including Dagoretti/Riruta/XXX and 3XXX, Ngecha/Kabuku/T.XXX, LR No. 7785/XXX in Runda, and LR No. 2/XXX in Kilimani. The report contains property descriptions, photographs, occupancy details and estimated monthly rental values. According to the report, the Dagoretti properties generated Kshs.88,000/= and Kshs.92,000/= monthly respectively, the Ngecha property generated Kshs.8,000/= monthly, the Runda property generated Kshs.160,000/= monthly and the Kilimani apartments generated Kshs.420,000/= monthly. 77.The Objector challenges the alleged liabilities relied upon by the Administrators. She contends that the claimed salary arrears for employees are not liabilities of the estate because the workers are employees of separate corporate entities, namely [Particulars Withheld] Ltd and [Particulars Withheld] Ltd, which own the developments in question and are capable of meeting their own obligations. She annexes CR12 company records and title documents to demonstrate the ownership structures of those companies and properties. 78.She similarly argues that company secretarial expenses for Ngufami Investments Ltd and related companies should not be borne by the estate because limited liability companies are distinct legal entities separate from shareholders and directors. She further maintains that many of the alleged liabilities remain unsubstantiated and that the proposed trust fund legal fees for WN are exaggerated and unsupported by evidence showing dependency upon the deceased. 79.The Objector concludes that the petition is an attempt to circumvent the pending summons for revocation of grant and that allowing the Administrators access to the deceased’s bank account would occasion prejudice to her and her sons while the legality of the grant remains unresolved. She therefore urges the Court to preserve the status quo pending determination of the challenge to the grant. 80.NNK avers inter alia that she is the 4th administrator and the deceased’s daughter. She states that the petition is fundamentally misconceived because the Court had already issued a full Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate on 27th October, 2025 to the Administrators, namely MNK, KNK, AMK and herself. 81.According to her, the existing full grant already vests the estate in the appointed Administrators and confers upon them complete authority to administer the estate. She further deposes, on advice of counsel, that a Special Limited Grant is only intended for limited and specific purposes where no full grant has been issued. 82.She therefore contends that seeking a parallel special grant while a substantive grant subsists is legally untenable, redundant and amounts to an improper duplication of grants of representation over the same estate. The deponent acknowledges that she had initially signed an authority to plead in support of the petition. However, she explains that at the time of signing, she had not received independent legal advice regarding the nature, scope, purpose or legal implications of the application. She avers that she did not appreciate the distinction between a full grant and a special limited grant and therefore did not fully understand the legal consequences of the authority she had executed. 83.N further states that upon obtaining independent legal advice from ADRA Advocates LLP, she came to understand that the petition neither advances nor protects her interests in the estate and is legally unsustainable in light of the existing full grant. 84.Consequently, she unequivocally withdrew the authority she had previously given to the 1st Administrator to act, plead or represent her in support of the petition. She annexes a letter dated 28th January, 2026 addressed to KNK communicating the withdrawal of her authority and opposition to the application. She further deposes that she does not support the petition in any respect and urges the Court to dismiss it. She maintains that the duly appointed Administrators should continue administering the estate pursuant to the powers already conferred under the full grant issued on 27th October, 2025. 85.The annexures attached to the affidavit include a certified copy of the grant of letters of administration intestate issued on 27th October, 2025 confirming the appointment of the four Administrators. The affidavit also annexes the letter from ADRA Advocates LLP dated 28th January, 2026, in which the advocates state that N had not received proper legal advice before authorizing the application for a special limited grant, that the application lacked legal foundation, and that she no longer consented to KNK acting or representing her in the proceedings. The letter further advises that all future dealings concerning the estate should be transparent, lawful and properly documented in compliance with the Administrators’ fiduciary obligations. 86.EMN, the Objector/Applicant, has filed written submissions dated 6th March, 2026. The submissions support the summons for revocation or annulment of grant dated 11th November, 2025. She seeks, inter alia, revocation of the grant issued on 27th October, 2025 to KNK, AMK, MNK and NNK, a stay of administration of the estate and orders compelling the Administrators to render a full inventory and account of all dealings with the estate. 87.She also prays that her objection and cross-petition dated 18th February, 2022 be heard on merit. The submissions contend that the grant issued on 27th October, 2025 was irregular and unlawful because it was made while valid objections, an answer to petition and a cross-petition remained pending and undetermined. According to the Objector, the issuance of the grant directly contravened Rules 17 (11) and 17 (14) of the Probate and Administration Rules, which prohibit issuance of a grant where an objection remains unresolved. 88.She frames three principal issues for determination: whether the proceedings culminating in the issuance of the grant were defective in substance under Section 76 (a) of the Law of Succession Act; whether the grant was procured through fraudulent concealment of material facts under Section 76 (b); and whether the Administrators have engaged in intermeddling with estate assets contrary to Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, thereby necessitating a stay of administration and comprehensive accounting. 89.In support of the application, the submissions set out the relevant statutory framework, including Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, Rules 17 (11) and 17 (14) of the Probate and Administration Rules, Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act, Rule 7 (7) of the Probate and Administration Rules, Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, and Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution. 90.The Objector argues that these provisions collectively require strict procedural compliance in succession proceedings, particularly where objections to a grant are pending. The submissions recount that the Objector, together with KGN and KKN, filed objections dated 18th February, 2022 and 18th May, 2022 respectively, together with an answer to petition and cross-petition asserting her status as widow and beneficiary of the estate. 91.It is emphasized that those pleadings were deemed properly filed by a ruling delivered on 28th June, 2024. Despite this, the Court proceeded to issue a grant during a mention on 27th October, 2025 after the Objector and her advocates failed to attend because they mistakenly believed proceedings would commence at 9.00 a.m. rather than 8.30 a.m. 92.The Objector submits that the Administrators and their advocates were fully aware of the pending objections and related pleadings but nonetheless procured the grant without disclosure of those material facts. It is argued that the existence of pending objections deprived the registry and the Court of jurisdiction to issue the grant and rendered the proceedings fundamentally defective. The submissions maintain that the grant therefore stands irreparably tainted by procedural impropriety. 93.Reliance is placed on authorities including In re Estate of Julius Ndubi Javan (Deceased), Monica Adhiambo v Maurice Odero Koko and In re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased). These authorities are cited for the proposition that succession proceedings require full disclosure of all material facts, that concealment of pending disputes justifies revocation of grant and that grants issued contrary to mandatory procedural safeguards are liable to revocation under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. 94.The Objector further submits that the petition for grant itself was defective because the 3rd administrator, MNK, allegedly failed to sign the petition as required under Section 51 of the Law of Succession Act. It is also argued that the supporting affidavit accompanying the petition was unsigned by the deponent and therefore lacked evidentiary value. 95.According to the Objector, these procedural defects independently invalidate the grant. The submissions additionally contend that the Objector, as widow of the deceased, ranks in priority under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 7 (7) of the Probate and Administration Rules. It is argued that she neither renounced her right to administration nor consented to the grant and was never cited to renounce her interest. 96.Reliance is placed on Monica Adhiambo v Maurice Odero Koko to support the argument that failure to involve a surviving spouse or person with prior entitlement constitutes a serious procedural defect warranting revocation. On concealment of material facts, the Objector submits that the Administrators deliberately failed to disclose the existence of the pending objections, answer to petition and cross-petition during the mention of 27th October, 2025. 97.It is argued that had the Court been fully apprised of the subsisting disputes, it would have adjourned the matter for hearing rather than proceed to issue a grant. According to the Objector, the Administrators’ conduct amounted to fraudulent concealment and procedural ambush. The submissions further accuse the Administrators of intermeddling with the estate by unlawfully collecting rent from estate properties situated in Kilimani, Dagoretti Corner, Kabuku Limuru, Juja and Kilifi without authority or accountability. 98.Reliance is placed on In the Matter of the Estate of Veronica Njoki Wanagoto (Deceased) for the principle that any handling of estate property without a grant of representation constitutes intermeddling contrary to Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The Objector argues that the grant issued to the Administrators did not retrospectively validate prior unauthorized dealings with estate assets. 99.It is further submitted that the Administrators’ continued collection of rent and failure to account for estate income threatens dissipation of estate assets and prejudices the Objector and her sons. Consequently, the Objector urges the Court to order the Administrators to provide a full inventory and account of all estate dealings. 100.In conclusion, the Objector submits that she has fully satisfied the statutory threshold for revocation under Section 76 (a) and (b) of the Law of Succession Act because the grant was procured through defective proceedings and concealment of material facts. She further argues that the Administrators’ intermeddling with estate assets aggravates the irregularities and necessitates immediate intervention by the Court to preserve the estate and safeguard its integrity. The Court is therefore urged to revoke the grant, stay administration of the estate and direct that the objections and cross-petition be heard and determined on merit. 101.NNK, the 4th dministrator, has filed written submissions dated 16th April, 2026. The submissions oppose the Objector’s summons for revocation of grant dated 11th November, 2025. The submissions recount that the deceased, NK, died intestate on 9th December, 2020 and that the Administrators, being his children, petitioned for grant of letters of administration intestate in October 2021. Although the Objector later filed objections and a cross-petition which were deemed properly filed by the Court on 28th June, 2024, the estate remained without Administrators for almost five years until the Court, on its own motion, appointed the Administrators and issued a grant on 27th October, 2025. 102.She maintains that the Court was fully informed of the pending objections before issuing the grant. The submissions identify several issues for determination, including whether the Objector’s conduct amounts to fraud, whether the statutory threshold for revocation under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act has been met, whether revocation would serve the interests of beneficiaries, whether the Objector has locus standi to allege intermeddling and whether the Objector herself has intermeddled with the estate. 103.On the question of fraud and identity, she submits that the Objector deliberately prosecuted the proceedings under the name EMN in order to create the impression that she was the deceased’s lawful widow, whereas her official identity documents allegedly bear the name EMM. 104.It is similarly argued that KGN and KKN are in fact KGM and KKM, biological children of DMG and that no lawful change of name, adoption or extinguishment of parental rights has been demonstrated. The submissions contend that this conduct amounts to fraud and material misrepresentation. 105.She further attacks the validity of the Objector’s marriage certificate, contending that it is unauthenticated, contains visible alterations and falsely describes the deceased as single despite his prior marriage to the late IWK. 106.Reliance is also placed on an affidavit allegedly sworn by one of the purported witnesses disowning the marriage ceremony. 107.The submissions additionally argue that the Objector had a subsisting marriage with DMG and therefore lacked capacity to contract another marriage under Sections 9 and 11 of the Marriage Act. 108.Consequently, it is submitted that the purported marriage was void and incapable of conferring rights upon the Objector. 109.In addressing the summons for revocation, she cites Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and emphasizes that revocation of grant is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Reliance is placed on authorities including Albert Imbuga Kisigwa v Recho Kavai Kisigwa and Bernard Munyi Mugo v Enid Igonji Mbogo to argue that an Applicant must strictly prove the statutory grounds for revocation. 110.The submissions maintain that the grant was not procured through fraud or concealment because the Court itself exercised discretion and issued the grant suo moto after considering the prolonged absence of Administrators and the risk of wastage of estate assets. The submissions further argue that the proceedings leading to issuance of the grant were not defective in substance. According to her, the Court was aware of the pending objections but nonetheless exercised its discretion under Section 66 of the Law of Succession Act, Section 47 of the Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules to appoint Administrators in order to preserve the estate. Authorities such as In re Estate of Christopher Kipng’etich Biwott are cited to support the proposition that the Court possesses wide inherent powers in succession matters to ensure preservation of estates. 111.On allegations of concealment of material facts, the submissions maintain that the Administrators disclosed the existence of the objections when the matter came before the Court on 27th October, 2025. It is argued that all Administrators attended Court and that the Objector’s absence resulted solely from her own misunderstanding of the cause list. She submits that the Objector cannot attribute her failure to attend Court to the Administrators and further argues that where a Court has deliberately exercised discretion to issue a grant, revocation on grounds of concealment is inappropriate. 112.According to the submissions, the Objector’s remedy, if aggrieved by the Court’s decision, lay in appeal rather than revocation proceedings. The submissions also contend that revocation would not serve the interests of justice because the estate consists of substantial properties which had remained unmanaged for nearly five years. It is argued that the appointment of Administrators was necessary to prevent deterioration and wastage of estate assets, and that revocation would once again leave the estate without lawful Administrators. 113.She emphasizes that the grant has not been confirmed and therefore the Objectors’ rights remain protected since the objections may still be heard before any distribution occurs. 114.On the issue of intermeddling, the submissions argue that under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, only a rightful executor or administrator has standing to pursue claims of intermeddling. Since the Objector is neither an executor nor an administrator, it is submitted that she lacks locus standi to complain about alleged collection of rent or administration of estate assets. 115.Authorities including In re Estate of Jackson Nicholas Kyengo Mulwa and In re Estate of Abdalla Juma Kibanda are cited in support of this position. 116.She finally submits that it is in fact the Objector who intermeddled with the estate by transferring and subsequently selling motor vehicle registration number KCE XXXE before any grant of representation had been issued. Reliance is placed on NTSA records showing that the vehicle was transferred from the deceased’s name to the Objector in August 2021 and later to a third party in February 2022. The submissions characterize this conduct as a clear violation of Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act and argue that the Objector’s own conduct disentitles her from equitable relief. The Court is therefore urged to dismiss the summons for revocation with costs. 117.AMK, the 2nd Administrator, has filed written submissions dated 15th May, 2026. The submissions oppose the Objector’s summons for revocation or annulment of grant dated 11th November, 2025. 118.She contends that the Objector is neither a lawful wife nor dependant of the deceased and therefore lacks entitlement to the reliefs sought. The submissions identify four principal issues for determination: whether a valid marriage existed between the Objector and the deceased; whether KG and KK qualify as children or dependants of the deceased; whether the Objector has met the threshold for revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act; and whether the Objector’s conduct disentitles her from equitable relief. 119.On the issue of marriage, she submits that the marriage certificate dated 29th September, 2016 relied upon by the Objector is invalid, fraudulent and incapable of proving a lawful marriage. It is argued that the certificate does not comply with Section 21 of the Marriage Act concerning witnesses and officiation and that investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations allegedly revealed that one of the purported witnesses denied attending or witnessing the ceremony. 120.The submissions further contend that the certificate falsely describes the deceased as single despite his prior marriage and that the Objector herself was still married to DMG. Consequently, it is argued that the purported marriage was void for lack of capacity under the Marriage Act and incapable of conferring rights upon the Objector. She also challenges the identity adopted by the Objector, submitting that she has inconsistently used different names for convenience in the proceedings. It is argued that the Objector’s use of the deceased’s surname amounts to a deliberate attempt to create the impression that she was the deceased’s lawful widow and thereby mislead the Court. 121.With regard to KG and KK, the submissions maintain that they are biological children of DMG and not of the deceased. It is argued that no evidence has been produced demonstrating lawful adoption or extinguishment of parental rights. Reliance is placed on proceedings in Tononoka Children’s Case No. 461 of 2014, which allegedly identified DMG as their father and showed that the deceased merely assisted with school fees and maintenance. She submits that the children therefore do not qualify as beneficiaries or dependants of the estate under Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act and that the deceased’s biological children rank in priority over them. 122.On the issue of revocation, the submissions argue that the Objector has failed to establish any of the statutory grounds under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. She submits that the grant was not obtained fraudulently and that the Court exercised its own discretion in issuing the grant. It is emphasized that the Objector and her advocates were aware of the hearing date and only failed to attend due to confusion regarding the Court’s commencement time. 123.According to the submissions, the Administrators did not conceal the existence of the objections and the Objector cannot rely on her own failure to attend Court as proof of concealment or procedural defect. The submissions further contend that Rules 17 (11) and 17 (14) of the Probate and Administration Rules do not create an absolute prohibition against issuance of a grant where objections exist. Rather, they are described as management provisions intended to guide administration of succession proceedings. 124.Reliance is placed on judicial authorities, including In re Estate of Matora (Deceased), to argue that issues raised in objections can effectively be resolved during confirmation proceedings and that the existence of objections alone does not invalidate the grant. She additionally argues that the estate had remained without Administrators for nearly five years, thereby exposing it to waste and deterioration. 125.It is submitted that the Administrators have been preserving and properly managing the estate while the Objector herself has engaged in intermeddling. The submissions specifically accuse the Objector of unlawfully transferring and disposing of motor vehicle registration number KCE XXXE prior to issuance of any grant, contrary to Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. It is argued that a party accused of intermeddling cannot approach the Court for equitable relief with unclean hands. 126.The submissions also annex and rely extensively on the decision in In re Estate of Samuel Muiruri Nganga (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 179 (KLR). The cited authority discusses the principles governing revocation of grant under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, emphasizing that revocation is discretionary and only warranted where fraud, concealment or substantial procedural defects are proved. The authority further underscores the Court’s duty to protect estates from waste and to ensure orderly administration. 127.Further reliance is placed on In re Estate of William Nyarindo Matara (Deceased) [2026] KEHC 2882 (KLR), which is annexed to the submissions. That decision discusses the Court’s inherent powers under Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules to preserve estates and ensure orderly administration, even where procedural irregularities are alleged. The authority also emphasizes the Court’s broad discretion to set aside or vary orders in the interests of justice and to avoid prejudice to beneficiaries. 128.In conclusion, she submits that the Objector has failed to establish sufficient grounds for revocation of the grant, has not proved lawful marriage or dependency and has herself engaged in conduct amounting to intermeddling and abuse of process. The Court is therefore urged to dismiss the summons for revocation with costs to the Administrators. Analysis and Determination 129.I have gone through the applications, the responses thereto and the rival submissions. 130.The issues arising for determination are whether the preliminary objection is sustainable; whether the grant issued on 27th October, 2025 ought to be revoked under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act; whether the Court should order accounts and preservation measures over the estate; and whether the application for a Special Limited Grant dated 24th November, 2025 is merited. 131.I will first dispense with the preliminary objection dated 30th March, 2026 by citing the case of I.N. & 5 others v. Board of Management St G. School Nairobi & another (2017) eKLR the Court defined, at paragraphs 7 & 8, a preliminary objection as follows: - “Definition of a preliminary objection: I find it necessary to define what constitutes a preliminary objection on a point of law. A preliminary objection must first, raise a point of law based on ascertained facts and not on evidence. Secondly, if the objection is sustained, that should dispose of the matter. A preliminary objection is in the nature of a legal objection not based on the merits or facts of the case, but must be on pure points of law. It may be noted that preliminary objections are narrow in scope and cannot raise substantive issues raised in the pleadings that may have to be determined by the Court after perusal of evidence. Understanding the nature and scope of preliminary objections is very important for practicing lawyers. Knowing how to raise a properly formulated preliminary objection, and when to raise it, can save a lot of time and costs.” 132.The preliminary objection raised by KN challenges the Objector’s identity, marital status, dependency and locus standi. However, these matters are heavily contested and depend on evidentiary proof regarding the validity of the alleged marriage, the identity of the Objectors, the legal effect of deed polls, dependency under Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act, and the status of KGN and KKN as alleged stepchildren or dependants of the deceased. 133.Such questions cannot be resolved as pure points of law without interrogation of evidence. The authorities cited on preliminary objections require that a preliminary objection be founded on uncontested facts and not on disputed evidence. Here, the Court would be required to examine marriage records, identity documents, children’s Court proceedings, alleged deed polls and factual allegations of dependency and intermeddling. The objection therefore falls outside the narrow scope of a true preliminary objection and cannot dispose of the proceedings summarily. The same is accordingly disallowed. 134.Moving on to the summons for revocation of grant dated 11th November, 2025: In re Estate of Harjit Singh Brah alias Harjit Singh Nihal (Deceased) (Succession Cause 3 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 25531 (KLR) (20 November 2023) (Ruling), the Court stated as follows:21.Revocation of grant is provided for under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The grounds upon which the grant may be revoked are well provided therein. The said section provides that revocation can either be at the instance of an Applicant or can be by the Court suo moto. However, it is a prerequisite that the conditions for revocation as set out under section 76 must be proved. In the case of Jamleck Maina Njoroge v Mary Wanjiru Mwangi [2015] eKLR, the Court discussed circumstances when a grant can be revoked. The Court observed that:“11.The circumstances that can lead to the revocation of grant have been set out in section 76 Law of Succession. For a grant to be revoked either on the Application of an interested party or on the Court’s own motion there must be evidence that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance, or that the grant was obtained fraudulently by making of false statement, or by concealment of something material to the case, or that the grant was obtained by means of untrue allegations of facts essential in point of law.”22.The power to revoke a grant is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously and only on sound grounds. It is not discretion to be exercised whimsically or capriciously. There must be evidence of wrong doing for the Court to invoke section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and order for revocation of or annulment of a grant. Besides, when a Court is called upon to exercise this discretion, it must take into account interests of all beneficiaries entitled to the deceased’s estate and ensure that the action taken will be for the interest of justice. Generally, the trial Court has jurisdiction to revoke a grant if the conditions under section 76 are satisfied.23.For avoidance of doubt, section 76 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows:76.Revocation or annulment of grant. A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the Court decides, either on application by any Interested Party or of its own motion—(a)that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;(b)that the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case;(c)that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;(d)that the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either—(i)to apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the Court order or allow; or(ii)to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or(iii)to produce to the Court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or(e)that the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.”24.The above section 76 was interpreted In re Estate of Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (Deceased) [2020] eKLR where it was stated that: “Under section 76, a Court may revoke a grant so long as the grounds listed above are disclosed, either on its own motion or on the application of a party. A grant of letters of administration may be revoked on three general grounds. The first is where the process of obtaining the grant was attended by problems. The first would be where the process was defective, either because some mandatory procedural step was omitted, or the persons applying for representation was not competent or suitable for appointment, or the deceased died testate having made a valid will and then a grant or letters of administration intestate was made instead of a grant of probate, or vice versa. It could also be that the process was marred by fraud and misrepresentation or concealment of matter, such as where some survivors are not disclosed or the Applicant lies that he is a survivor when he is not, among other reasons. The second general ground is where the grant was obtained procedurally, but the administrator, thereafter, got into problems with the exercise of administration, such as where he fails to apply for confirmation of grant within the time allowed, or he fails to proceed diligently with administration, or fails to render accounts as and when required. The third general ground is where the grant has become useless and inoperative following subsequent circumstances, such as where a sole administrator dies leaving behind no administrator to carry on the exercise, or where the sole administrator loses the soundness of his mind for whatever reason or even becomes physically infirm to an extent of being unable to carry out his duties as administrator, or the sole administrator is adjudged bankrupt and, therefore, becomes unqualified to hold any office of trust.” 135.On the summons for revocation of grant, Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act empowers the Court to revoke a grant where the proceedings to obtain it were defective in substance or where the grant was obtained through concealment of material facts or untrue allegations essential in law. 136.The undisputed record before the Court demonstrates that by the time the grant was issued on 27th October, 2025, there existed on record objections to the making of grant, an answer to petition and a cross-petition which had been expressly deemed properly filed by the Court through the ruling delivered on 28th June, 2024. Those pleadings had neither been withdrawn nor determined. Rules 17 (11) and 17 (14) of the Probate and Administration Rules contemplate that where objections remain unresolved, the issuance of a grant ought not to proceed until the objection process is addressed. 137.The Court being alive to this fact is also conscious that the estate had remained without an administrator for over five years and obviously getting wasted and dissipated. The same could not be left in a vacuum and that is one major reason for appointing the four as joint Administrators. 138.At the same time their duties and responsibilities are well set by the law. The grant, to alley the Objectors’ fears, is not to transfer or transmit any of the estates assets but to collect and manage while awaiting the confirmation of the grant. Contrary to the vector taken by the Objector, there is sufficient time to interrogate and determine her objection proceedings. 139.In the Courts wisdom therefore, the Administrators are supposed to midwife the estate and to ensure that proper accounts are kept and managed until the matter is finally determined and grant confirmed and the estate transmitted. The same is in line with section 47 and 83 of the Succession Act. 140.Further, the Court is unable at this interlocutory stage to conclusively determine whether EMN is or is not the lawful widow of the deceased, whether the impugned marriage certificate is genuine or whether KGN and KKN qualify as dependants under Sections 3 (2) and 29 of the Law of Succession Act. Those are substantive evidentiary issues requiring viva voce evidence, cross-examination and production of documentary proof. 141.On the allegations of intermeddling, both sides accuse each other of unlawful dealings with estate assets. The Objector alleges prolonged collection of rent without accountability, while the Administrators accuse the Objector of unlawfully transferring motor vehicle registration number KCE XXXE and attempting to access estate funds through separate proceedings. 142.At this stage, the Court cannot conclusively determine criminal or fraudulent conduct on affidavit evidence alone. However, the allegations on both sides demonstrate the urgent necessity for accountability and preservation of the estate pending final resolution of the dispute. 143.The Court is therefore satisfied that an order for inventory and accounts is appropriate under Sections 45 and 83 of the Law of Succession Act. The Administrators who have been in possession or control of estate assets shall file within sixty days a full inventory of the estate assets and liabilities together with a true account of all income received, expenditure incurred and dealings undertaken since the death of the deceased. Equally, the Objector shall preserve all estate assets presently under her control pending further directions of the Court. 144.With regard to the application for a Special Limited Grant dated 24th November, 2025, the same is predicated upon the continued validity of the substantive grant issued on 27th October, 2025. 145.The Court agrees with NNK that a special limited grant under Section 54 of the Law of Succession Act is intended for specific exceptional purposes and should not issue in duplication of a subsisting full grant. 146.Further, some of the alleged liabilities relate to separate corporate entities whose obligations cannot automatically be imposed upon the estate without proper evidentiary foundation. The application for special limited grant is therefore declined. 147.Accordingly, I make the following orders:a.The preliminary objection dated 30th March, 2026 is dismissed for lack of merit.b.The grant of letters of administration intestate issued on 27th October, 2025 for the reasons stated above shall remain valid pending the hearing and determination of the objection proceedings as well as cross petition.c.Pending hearing and determination of the objections, answer to petition and cross-petition, there be a temporary stay of confirmation and distribution of the estate.d.The Administrators and all persons currently in possession or control of estate assets to, within 30 days file a full inventory and account of all dealings with the estate from the date of death of the deceased to date.e.The objection proceedings, answer to petition and cross-petition be set down for expedited viva voce hearing on priority basis and leave is hereby granted to all the parties to file any additional documents within 30 days from the date hereof.f.The application dated 24th November, 2025 seeking a Special Limited Grant is dismissed.g.Each party to bear its own costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026.H.K. CHEMITEIJUDGE